Appeal No. 2004-1426
Application No. 10/038,346
than the distance to empty, it will not be selected if the distance to the second
service provider is within the range of the vehicle.
On page 2 of the office action dated June 16, 2003, the examiner asserts
that Ross teaches a system that determines if a vehicle needs maintenance and
identifies the closest maintenance provider. The examiner does not assert, nor
do we find that Ross teaches or suggests “selecting the closer service provider to
provide the maintenance service when the closer service provider is within a
predetermined distance from the current location of the vehicle.” Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 129 through 137, 139 through
146 and 148 through 154 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ross in
view of Suman.
As stated supra we find that the disclosure of Suman’s “Last Exit Warning
System” is nearly identical to the teaching of the “Last Exit Warning System” of
Blaker. We do not find that Blaker teaches or suggests “selecting the closer
service provider to provide the maintenance service when the closer service
provider is within a predetermined distance from the current location of the
vehicle.” Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 129
through 137, 139 through 146 and 148 through 154 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Blaker in view of Suman.
In summary we will not sustain either of the examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 129
through 137, 139 through 146 and 148 through 154.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007